Comment by cup | Hacker News Reader

Comment by cup | Hacker News Reader

To speak candidly, I always found it irritating when Atheists and Secular "thinkers" would attack me for being religious and a scientist at the same time, as if my religion must somehow stunf my intellectual capability. Furthermore, more often than not, the loudest champions for science are the ones furthest away from the scientific field. I've never seen such hyperbole or purist/fundamentalist views about science except in non-scientists. In my opinion science, the thing we do to further humanities knowledge, is deeply flawed, unnecessarily complicated and painfully dirty. Let me provide a few examples:

The "3 year degree". When I finished my three year Science degree I looked back on my time not with pride but rather disdain and anger. I felt like the work I had done to achieve the piece of paper my degree was written on did not warrant three years of my life. I felt like if the university gave me the opportunity, I could have completed my degree in a year, with full time or over time studying. That being said I had the luxury of living in a country with free or freeish education. Don't even get me started on PhDs and postdocs.

Science funding: While science is supposed to be impartial, illuminating and free for all it sadly isnt. Pharmaceutical companies pay big money to get results that allow them bring drugs on the market. I'm not suggesting there methods are corrupt, far from it, but the fact that they have a vested financial interest in results steers there line of thinking so that any scientific discoveries that arn't beneficial to drug x are shelved. PhD students who are supported with financial grants are also impended by NDA paperwork and a wall of patent/commercial impediments.

The point I'm making is that It's not suprising people lose faith in science when they start to look beyond the superficial layers. Science is difficult, confusing and complicated but It's also essential, It's also wonderful and It's also fundamental for human society. The problem though (at least it appears to me) is that in many ways there is a huge disconnect between cutting edge science/peer review articles and the general public. I've been thinking about what to do to plug that gap and make science more accessible to people without requiring 5 years of studying but thats another story all together.

>I always found it irritating when Atheists and Secular "thinkers" would attack me for being religious and a scientist at the same time

It irritates you because you take it personally. I understand religion plays an important role in your life I really do, but to a nonbeliever one belief without evidence is just like the next. I would also be suspicious if I met a physicist who used Ouija boards. I'd tell him -- and you and the guy referred to in the article -- to collect evidence & write up a convincing argument to a skeptical audience instead of complaining. There are too many weird beliefs around. If we tried to disprove this stuff there wouldn't be time for anything else.

> To speak candidly, I always found it irritating when Atheists and Secular "thinkers" would attack me for being religious and a scientist at the same time, as if my religion must somehow stunf my intellectual capability.

I would think so. How can you say, "I'm a scientist, I'll construct experiments and observe results to understand reality," and then go believe that there's a dude in the universe that's omnipotent and omnipresent without a shred of observable evidence?

> Science is difficult, confusing and complicated.

Science is cherry pie compared to trying to appease some mystical, invisible, unobserable, unknowable, all-powerful, imaginary god.

Well I hypothesis God exists. My experimental method is that I attempt to adher to the principles I understand bring one closer to God. I'll collect my experimental data when I've passed away and determine my conclusion posthumously.

I mean this is exactly the issue I'm talking about. My religious beliefs do not impede my scientific work, so why do people get so bothered about it?

>I would think so. How can you say, "I'm a scientist, I'll construct experiments and observe results to understand reality," and then go believe that there's a dude in the universe that's omnipotent and omnipresent...

Thousands of scientists throughout history have been conducting experiments while simultaneously holding a belief in God.

To take an example from our own industry, how do you feel about Donald Knuth. Do you discount his work because of his faith?

>...without a shred of observable evidence?

We all make presuppositions. You assume that your senses are basically reliable. You make this assumption because it is useful, and without it everything you do would be meaningless--yet you have absolutely no way to prove it.

Each of us makes assumptions about the nature of the universe. You have no right to judge someone else because you believe your presuppositions are less ridiculous than his.

Thousands of scientists throughout history have conducted research while simultaneously holding beliefs in any number of things. It would be fallacious to discount their scientific work because of this fact, at least as long as they held to scientific principles of reasoning. But the fact that they were scientists does not lend credence to the additional, unfalsifiable claims they may have made about the universe.

Furthermore, just because an assertion (e.g. "there is a God") cannot be proven (or disproven) does not mean it should be free from scrutiny. The claim that one has "no right to judge" a belief due to lack of evidence is an argumentum ad ignorantiam. Lack of evidence is a perfectly valid reason to be skeptical.

There are two presuppositions you compare: "I think, therefore I am" and "There is a God." Both require at least a very fundamental assumption, but only one has any basis in what we might typically refer to as "evidence."

>But the fact that they were scientists does not lend credence to the additional, unfalsifiable claims they may have made about the universe.

I never said it did. Did you read post I was responding to? I was attacking the premise that one can't be both a scientist and a believer in God with the evidence that there have been many scientists who believed in God.

In fact your sentence here:

>It would be fallacious to discount their scientific work because of this fact

is exactly my argument.

>Furthermore, just because an assertion (e.g. "there is a God") cannot be proven (or disproven) does not mean it should be free from scrutiny.

Never said it should be free from scrutiny. I have no problem with you criticizing my beliefs. What I do have a problem with is the OP asserting that my beliefs make me a poor scientist. And the very specific assumption that belief in God renders one unable to perform scientific inquiry. You seem to agree with me, as does the evidence.

>There are two presuppositions you compare: "I think, therefore I am" and "There is a God." Both require at least a very fundamental assumption, but only one has any basis in what we might typically refer to as "evidence."

Two options to explain the beginning of the universe and why it doesn't violate causality.

A. Causality came into existence with the beginning of the universe and so was never violated.

B. An eternal God exists separate from the universe he created

There is absolutely no physical way to prove either one. Which one is simpler or more likely is completely subjective.

You can't choose camp A with no supporting evidence, and then decide that you are more rational or superior to people in camp B because they lack evidence.

Yes, apologies. I misunderstood your meaning. I also think we interpreted dhechols's post slightly differently. (I did not assume he was actually making the argument that "one can't be both a scientist and a believer in God" -- I thought he was just hinting at a cognitive dissonance between being a scientist and holding a faith, which is a slightly different line of discussion.)

Your other point:

> "You can't choose camp A with no supporting evidence, and then decide that you are more rational or superior to people in camp B because they lack evidence."

Whoever said I chose camp A? This line of reasoning excludes the possibility of an option C (or D, E, F, etc). Again, argumentum ad ignorantiam. You are shifting the burden of proof and appealing to ignorance. ("There is no proof, therefore they are both equally subjective.")

How about, instead, "there is no proof, therefore we don't know or claim to know." Seems more rational than any of the other options, at least to me.

(Sure, nobody's 100% rational, so we could keep picking these arguments apart all night. I'm happy to agree on a simple "we don't know" for anything not empirically based on the evidence of the senses.)

A. Causality came into existence with the beginning of the universe and so was never violated.

B. An eternal God exists separate from the universe he created

I think the issue that most skeptics have with "B", is not that it is being presented as a possible explanation to the existence of the universe as you have written here, but that there are folks that say they know and talk to this dude, and he tells them we need to pay their organization money (or fill in whatever other ridiculous religious dogma you want here).

I was thinking "Do people really attack you for being religious in that way? Surely not." And yet here we have someone doing just that. How sad.

Human beings believe things without a shred of credible evidence all the time. In fact, taking things on faith is a valuable, even vital intellectual short-cut that allows us to get on with doing stuff without having to work out every detail of our lives from first principles all the time.

I happen to believe that this explains belief in god, i.e. that it's an intellectual short-cut that allows societies to construct functional moral and social frameworks that historically have served a valuable purpose. Frameworks that nowadays are not so valuable because we now have well worked out philosophies of life and morality that render divine fiat unnecessary to leading a healthy, productive and satisfying life. I see religious as being a vestigial social construct that is withering away as it's nolonger required.

However I am also very much aware that I still use all sorts of intellectual short-cuts and assumptions every day. Anyone who thinks human beings are inherently rational logical beings is IMHO delusional. We are primarily emotional, instinctual beings overlayed with thin layer of self awareness and congnition.

Therefore I think there's plenty of scope for sensible people to adhere to religious belief systems if they so choose, as long as they don't expect special rights and privileges for doing so. But can we all agree to at least be civil about it?

Being civil about these issues is important. (dhechols could have been more civil.) But one of the problems with belief systems is that people often do "expect special rights and privileges."

In my opinion, one of those widely regarded "special rights" is the right to make unfalsifiable claims without being challenged. Scepticism is widely viewed as an "attack" on the safety-zone we call "faith," when in reality it is simply what it is: someone pointing out logical flaws. It's not their fault if we take it personally because we believe our beliefs should be free from sceptics.

But, of course, it helps to not be an ass about it too.

He wasn't attacking him. What's sad is that you need to feel persecuted.

The point is exactly as you say, just because you have faith you don't get any privileges. I and many others cannot understand how one can bring the empiricism inherent to science in accordance with the irrationality of faith. (And I don't use irrational as an insult here, I just mean that faith isn't based on a rational basis). It's not attacking for finding that incredulous.

I think of myself as a scientist and a rational person, yet I believe in some form of an immortal soul, or at least that the mind is not physical. I absolutely don't feel like I should be free from scepticism and even if I did I wouldn't feel attacked if someone questioned my "faith".

EDIT: A single downvote and no reply. That means I'm right, right?

Deductive reasoning may be a powerful tool for discovery, but it can just as easily be hijacked into a means to rationalize emotion and stop useful action. Your argument here, for example, boils down to "why aren't you 100% consistent with rational thought?" But I don't know of anyone who is, so why would you try to justify atheism on that basis? The rational ideal is one you'd have to believe in, just as much as any God.

Isn't it basically Argumentum ad personam?

If a known liar and drug addict tells you that he have this theory, and proceed to make rational arguments for it, ignoring him just because of his reputation isn't very scientific.

It's ad hominem if dhechols' point was that a scientist's work should be ignored if he/she also holds religious beliefs. That's not how I read it. I see no fallacy in simply pointing out a disparity between scientific reasoning and (unscientific) beliefs.

> To speak candidly, I always found it irritating when Atheists and Secular "thinkers" would attack me for being religious and a scientist at the same time, as if my religion must somehow stunf my intellectual capability.

FWIW, Knuth (yes, that one) is fairly religious. Anyone want to claim that he's stunted? Be sure to include supporting evidence.

FWIW, computer science is like mathematics--it's largely an exercise in logic and doesn't require any deep commitment to an empirical worldview.

I'll bite - how often does a belief in intelligent design instead of evolution matter?

For example, does it matter at all to a particle physicist? How about a chemist? How about materials science?

Newton thought that he'd be remembered as an alchemist....

Reply on news.ycombinator.com